In part one of this series, we introduced the notion of “White Fragility” (You can read part 1 at: http://www.marketfaith.org/2021/04/the-fragility-of-white-fragility-part-1). We continue this introduction by going deeper into the actual beliefs of this notion and comparing it to the truth taught in the Christian faith concerning race.
The Naturalistic Construct of White Fragility
It was noted above that the very concept of White Fragility is a naturalistic construct. But what exactly does a person have to believe in order to agree with it? We have already alluded to it, but let’s go a little deeper and specifically spell it out. We get at the beliefs of Naturalism by finding out how it answers the three essential worldview questions: 1) What is the nature of ultimate reality? 2) What is man? and 3) What is the ultimate one can achieve in this life? Once we know that, we can see how that philosophy deals with the notion of White Fragility.
What Is the Nature of Ultimate Reality?
Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. Thus, there is considered to be no God, or any kind of transcendent reality. That being the case, there is no possible objective source for any moral belief. Human beings must determine for themselves what is moral and what is not moral based on their own personal preferences. Those who are able to become powerful enough to influence the moral rules of society, then, are the ones who get to play God in society.
Thus, the notion of White Fragility is not based on any objective measure, but is merely the philosophical preference and unsupported assumption of those who believe in it. There is no reason to accept it other than belief in the pronouncements of those who assert it to be true.
White Fragility, as a moral construct, begins with an underlying belief that white people are racist. The reason they are racist is not based on anything any particular white person has done. Rather, it is founded upon the fact that the culture that exists in America was established by white people, and that their cultural rules disadvantage black people. Thus, the racism is structural, not personal. With that as a starting point, it is impossible for a white person to not be racist since they are advantaged by simply existing in the white established culture.
However, since the very notion of racism is considered a moral taboo, white people reflexively reject the notion and throw up all kinds of defenses to keep from considering themselves racist. This denial is called White Fragility. Again, it is not based on any kind of objective reality, but purely on accepting the naturalistic philosophy of the gods (the people) who assert it.
What is Man?
In Naturalism, man is nothing more than one naturally evolved animal among many. Based on that belief, the notion of White Fragility is purely tied to the natural existence of man on earth. It is understood in the context of the following worldview question.
What Is the Ultimate One Can Achieve in this Life?
Since Naturalism rejects the concept of transcendent reality, this life is all that can possibly exist for mankind. Thus, the ultimate one can achieve in life must be a purely temporal construct. There is no other possibility. Based on naturalistic beliefs, there are two levels of ultimate achievement that are possible – the collective level and the individual level.
When it comes to the notion of White Fragility, the individual level is mostly irrelevant. While the author of the book never specifies any specific desired outcome from people as they consider their White Fragility, she does mention that it is possible to “feel better” once their white privilege is personally recognized and they work to give it up as a means of assuaging the guilt of being a racist.
It is the collective level, though, that is most important. As it relates to the human species, survival is considered to be the ultimate goal. The important principle as it relates to human survival, then, is that if the existing structural racism can be eliminated, the survival, and even the thriving, of the collective can be enhanced. Thus, white people ought to recognize their racism and dedicate themselves to eliminating all expressions of it in their lives.
How a Biblical Worldview Evaluates White Fragility
To get at the biblical worldview, we must do the same thing we did when looking at Naturalism – we must see how the Bible answers the three essential worldview questions, and note how these deal with the notion of White Fragility.
What Is the Nature of Ultimate Reality?
Based on a biblical worldview, ultimate reality is the God of the Bible who has revealed himself to be righteous, just, and love. He does not evaluate or value people based on ethnicity, social status, or gender, shows no partiality based on nationality, does not value people based on observance of religious rituals, does not judge human beings based on their works, and has provided the possibility of eternal salvation for ALL of mankind regardless of background – all based on a single criteria.
What is Man?
As it relates to God’s view of human beings, He sees all people as a special creation that He created in His own image. Further, all humans ultimately descended from the original two human beings He created in the beginning. Based on this, the notion of White Fragility must be considered through a spiritual lens, not a material one. It can be understood in the context of the following worldview question.
What Is the Ultimate One Can Achieve in this Life?
Based on a biblical worldview, the ultimate one can achieve in this life is an eternal personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. The ultimate is not the temporal satisfaction of some social justice cause, but a spiritual relationship with Him.
Thus, Diamgelo’s White Fragility is not a concept that corresponds in any way to a biblical worldview. White Fragility assumes that offense is a one way street – from white people to black people – and that it can only be solved by acts taken in material life. The Bible does not see mankind that way. It really does envision a color-blind society where every person is equal before God. As it relates to human-to-human interaction, every person (both black and white) should have enough respect for one another, based on their love for God, that they would never try to cause offense. And if it does happen, they love each other enough to try to solve the problem together.
The Fragility of White Fragility
The fragility of the very notion of White Fragility is in the fact that it has no ultimate desired outcome. And if there is no ultimate desired outcome, there is no way to design a plan to solve the problem. Essentially, all Diangelo has done is to assert that there is a problem, then urge white people to acknowledge it and wallow in their misery for being a racist. There is no way to get past it.
There are some other problems associated with this notion, as well. Supposed white privilege is not the only factor responsible for causing tension between two races. Three other matters immediately come to mind.
First, those who promote the White Fragility agenda base their assessment on their naturalistic beliefs. They don’t justify those beliefs, but they still assume them to be true and attack white people based on them. But until they are able to justify the validity of their Naturalism, they have no standing to accuse people of racism who hold other worldview beliefs.
A second matter that Diangelo doesn’t account for regards the differences that exist in various cultures. As a general principle, some of the problems that are manifested between races are cultural, not racial. It is certainly true, as the author points out repeatedly, that historically, blacks in American society have in some ways been treated differently than white people. This different treatment certainly accounts for some of the cultural divide that exists in society. But it is not as simple as that, either. Even within the black community there are numerous subcultures that have different folkways and mores (which is true in the white community, as well). These cultural differences relate to matters such as economic status, religious beliefs, use of language and other cultural symbols, customs, rules of leadership, and geographical influences. These differences create various conflicts even within the black community itself. However, none of these elements of culture are accounted for in Diangelo’s discussion of White Fragility. According to her, ALL of the worlds conflicts can be laid at the door of white privilege.
Another matter that Diangelo did not account for is population density. The current percentage of the black population in America is 13.4%. The percentage of other non-white ethnicities is 10.3%. That means that the white population is 76.3%. This is actually a lower percentage than in past times.
The reason for noting these statistics is that, except for some very unusual circumstances, the culture of the majority population virtually always establishes the cultural norms for a society. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that, it is simply a fact and could hardly be any other way. Diangelo makes an assumption that the values of the white population that established American society are wrong, immoral, and racist, but never gives any reason why that should be accepted as true. Why is it racist for the values of the majority to dominate a society?
The fact is, right and wrong are not a function of race, they are a function of values. Diangelo has her preferred values that are based on a kind of collectivism that she assumes are non-racist – yet she never objectively identifies them or tells why people should adopt them. Her values stand in stark contrast to biblical values that are based on an objective foundation that is revealed in the Bible, and which evaluates people as individuals.
The notion of White Fragility is, indeed, fragile. When compared to the way reality is actually structured, it literally falls apart. It is a false religious belief that simply does not reflect the nature of ultimate reality, the nature of man, nor does it provide us with a means of achieving the ultimate it is possible for us, as human beings, to achieve in life.
© 2021 Freddy Davis